Towards a digital engagement standard

So, this post is about a piece of work I’ve been contemplating for some time. I’ve been working with the excellent Sciencewise project for some months now – their aim is to “enable better policy making by fostering capacity within the policy-making community to commission and use excellent public dialogue”. They do this by engaging with government departments (policymakers) on a range of science & technology issues and hire contractors to run public dialogue projects around them.

An emerging theme is that some of the contractors are behind the curve when it comes to digital engagement. Some of the projects have no aspect of digital at-all and there is a risk that others will be badly designed. While corrective measures are in-hand, I thought that it would be a good idea to set minimum standards (and elevated ones) for the digital engagement aspects of public dialogue projects in the future.

The idea is simple. Not all public dialogue projects need a digital engagement emphasis but at the same time the digital channel cannot be ignored. This premise applies for most public facing projects. So, what are the basic / intermediate and advanced requirements?

The thinking begins

Firstly, I want to start with a number of desired objectives. I want these to be pinned to the public sector and rotate around engagement. For example:-

Engage a specific audience

Increase trust in the process

Encourage quality interactions

Enhance citizen knowledge of issues

Prevent the spread of misinformation

Gather input on policy development

Increase public support for decisions already taken

Obtain better informed opinions

Stimulate involvement

Provide project feedback

Broaden dialogue

Deepen dialogue

Extend dialogue

Next, I have been looking at the various existing models. These are quite bland, and I’m no fan of Arnsteins ladder of citizen participation (partly because it’s soooo old).

Then I came across a much groovier model from the US Department of Transport (2013). They list four levels of involvement in an increasing capacity:-

SHARE (information and data)

GATHER (collect insights, knowledge, expertise and experiments)

INVITE (input into issues including policy)

BUILD (collaborating and co-ordination)

I quite like this as it uses activity centric words instead of citizen centric ones (e.g. empower and inform)

Consolidation

Next, a little adaptation. While the DOT model is good it doesn’t account for the ‘connecting’ facets of digital engagement. For example, the ability for citizen to contact an expert or the project co-ordinators. So, I’ve simply substituted GATHER for CONNECT. Secondly, I don’t really like ‘invite’ as it sounds like a closed process so I’ve substituted this for INCLUDE. Finally I’ve swapped out BUILD for INTERACT – this seemed to make more sense in the scope of digital dialogue.

SHARE (a digital channel presence)

CONNECT (a means of digital contact)

INCLUDE (a means of being officially involved using the digital channel or medium)

INTERACT (using the digital channel to host the dialogue)

So, there you have it. Now to decide what really should be a minimum for any digital component of a public policy project. Well, it really goes without saying that there shouldn’t be a level zero.

Levels 1 & 2 feel like they can be easily joined. After all, it would be a poor show to have a project website if there was no Twitter presence or email contact for that presence. Levels 3&4 feel more discrete – so I’ve kept them alone. You end up with this:-

SHARE & CONNECT (basic)

INCLUDE (intermediate)

INTERACT (advanced)

Flesh on the bones

So, what do these levels mean? Well, this is where I need your help. I’m pulling together a list of features which I feel are representative of each. Bear in mind some of these items are public facing and others are about the way that the hosts behave or treat communications.

Here is my interpretation:-

SHARE AND CONNECT

A web (mobile responsive) web presence and unique URL

Dynamic and up-to-date content

Searchable, digital archive of all paper based information

A manned, unique email address

A manned, unique Twitter handle that is capable of being conversational

Contact details of the experts or authorities involved

The ability to freely comment on published thought pieces in a flat yet transparent way

Social integration (e.g. Share, Like buttons)

Syndication options (e.g. RSS)

Email newsletter and subscribe feature

Collect Analytics

Basic SEO

INCLUDE (the above and…)

The ability to officially record a viewpoint which can be treated in equal weight to an offline participant. For example, online survey or poll.

A means of capturing, classifying and analysing all qualitative feedback on the official digital space

A means of monitoring and considering on-topic conversations outside of the official digital space

A manned, unique Twitter handle that is capable of being conversational

Evidence of digital marketing to ensure that participation has been invited / adequate visibility

The use of rich media to recycle information and evidence – to enhance knowledge or act as a stimulus

INTERACT (the above and…)

Actively responding or signposting the public in ‘unofficial’ digital spaces